Use of Language Learning Strategies by Indian Learners of

Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 29 (2): 955 - 976 (2021)

SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIESJournal homepage: http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/

Article history:Received: 23 January 2021Accepted: 11 April 2021Published: 22 June 2021

ARTICLE INFO

E-mail addresses:[email protected] (Andrew Philominraj) [email protected] (Ranjeeva Ranjan) [email protected] (Rodrigo Arellano Saavedra) [email protected] (Gaurav Kumar)*Corresponding author

ISSN: 0128-7702e-ISSN: 2231-8534 © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.2.12

Use of Language Learning Strategies by Indian Learners of Spanish as A Foreign Language

Andrew Philominraj1, Ranjeeva Ranjan2*, Rodrigo Arellano Saavedra2 and Gaurav Kumar3

1Department of Languages, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, 3460000, Chile2Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, 3460000, Chile3Centre of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 110067, India

concerning the year of study, there were statistically significant differences in the use of LLS among the three groups. Finally, regarding the effectiveness of the use of LLS among the participants, the results underlined a need for explicit or implicit strategic training.

Keywords: Foreign language, language learning

strategies, learning trajectory, Spanish in India,

strategy usage

ABSTRACT

Learning a foreign language in a non-native context is both a challenging and difficult task. This learning encompasses many processes and follows different trajectories. One of the offshoots of these processes is the strategies used by the learners in their learning route. During the last forty-five years, the research in the learning strategies field has grown many folds and has contributed to our understanding of how learners use these tools in their learning path. This article examines some of the common language learning strategies (LLS) employed by the students while learning Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) at two major Central Universities of India. The present study is carried out by using a mixed-method under the descriptive framework in which the common learning strategies have been analyzed and discussed. In terms of the higher proficient group, the result shows no statistically significant differences in the use of LLS, on the contrary,

956 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 29 (2): 955 - 976 (2021)

Andrew Philominraj, Ranjeeva Ranjan, Rodrigo Arellano Saavedra and Gaurav Kumar

INTRODUCTION

The field of language learning strategies (LLS) started in the 1970s with the seminal work of Rubin (1975) in which she tried to look at the characteristics of a good language learner and the differential success in the language classroom. This study was followed by several other research works like Stern (1975), Hosenfeld (1976) and Naiman et al. (1978) among others. The research in this area followed a rising path with many volumes published at the beginning of the 21st century. However, the field has been criticized by scholars like Dörnyei and Skehan (2003), Dörnyei (2005), and Tseng et al. (2006), “on the grounds of terminology, definitions, effectiveness, theoretical underpinnings, classification, and research methodology” (Zhang et al., 2019, p. 88). Given the research importance on LLS, there arises a need to explore and examine the LLS used by the Indian learners and at the same time explore the potential of explicit and implicit strategy integration in the Indian classroom for effective and efficient language learning.

In India, the teaching of foreign languages has acquired a new dimension with the implementation of the new education policy of the education commission in 1966, which highlighted the importance and the necessity of teaching and learning foreign languages (Singh, 2009). Hispanismo, or the study of the literature and culture of the Spanish speaking world, has a history of fifty years in this nation compared to China’s seventy and Japan’s hundred and fifteen (de Lucas, 2006). It is common knowledge

that Spanish language is a fast growing language with almost 585 million speakers around the globe. The number of potential speakers of this particular language has increased more than 30% and the amount of students learning Spanish as a foreign language has increased by almost to 60% in the last decade (Instituto Cervantes, 2020). This reality is not different to the Indian subcontinent where there is an increase in teaching and learning of this foreign language at several universities.

However, the opportunities are less for the Indian learners to familiarize themselves with Spanish and its culture, which constitutes a challenge to the learning of a foreign language. They look for opportunities to apply the knowledge learnt in the classroom in the local context (Gadre, 2005). Understanding the strategies employed by learners in both situations, inside the classroom while carrying out a task and outside of classroom in a real communicative context, becomes essential as it could help in their pedagogical process (Habók & Magyar, 2018).

The aim of the present study is to highlight the important strategies as reported by the learners of Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) in two Central universities in India. This is done by comparing strategies based on two factors; proficiency and the year of study. Further, the research takes into consideration the perspective of students on the various aspects of LLS and its effectiveness. The paper illustrates the theoretical underpinning of LLS, considering its definition, principal taxonomy, and the

957Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 29 (2): 955 - 976 (2021)

Use of Language Learning Strategies

previous studies on the theme of LLS use, proficiency in Spanish, and the duration of the study. The significance of the study lies in the fact that it does not limit to just reporting the frequency and the use of LLS but also provides the list of LLS and its effectiveness as stated by students. Finally, the limitations and educational implications to the use of LLS in learning a foreign language are reported.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Definition and Classification of LLS

Prominent scholars in LLS have tried to define this concept since the beginning of research in this field, but has not been exempt from criticisms and there has not been a common agreement on some of the issues. For Rubin (1975), strategies were “techniques or devices” (p. 43) and Stern (1983) defined them as “general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach” (p. 405). Wenden and Rubin (1987) described, “learning strategies as any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (p. 19). Oxford (1990) termed strategies as “steps taken by the students to enhance their own learning” and referred to them as “tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence” (p. 1). Chamot (2004) referred to them as “the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take to achieve a learning goal” (p. 14). Griffiths (2008) defined LLS as “activities consciously chosen by learners for the purpose of

regulating their own language learning” (p. 87). The latest definition of LLS by Oxford (2017), arrived through content analysis of 33 existing definitions involving LLS and similar concepts encompasses all theoretical concepts and provides the evolutionary trajectory of this area. Oxford (2017) defined strategies as “complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by learners with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts to regulate multiple aspects of themselves” (p. 48). This selection and use of strategies are directed towards “accomplishing language tasks, improving language performance or use, and/or enhancing long-term proficiency” (p. 48). She further adds that strategies are “mentally guided but may also have physical and therefore observable manifestations” (p. 48). She also highlights the orchestration of strategies according to the learning need and adds that strategies can be taught (which is referred to as strategy instruction, SI). Another important feature that appears in her definition is the contextual use of strategies and finally, she underlines that “appropriateness of strategies depends on multiple personal and contextual factors” (p. 48). This definition provides a comprehensive reflection of the theoretical underpinnings in the historical development of LLS.

Another a rea o f deba te i s the classification of LLS. Rubin (1981) provided two categories, direct and indirect while O’Malley and Chamot (1990) provided three; metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies. Oxford (1990)



classified LLS into six categories consisting of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social in her Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Oxford’s (2011) S2R (Strategic Self-Regulation) model of learning included four categories: cognitive, affective, sociocultural-interactive, and the master category of “metastrategies” (includes metacognitive strategies). Oxford (2017) opines, “no strategy classification, typology, or taxonomy actually directly reflects how strategies operate, because strategies are complex and have multiple roles” (p. 141). On the other hand, Griffiths (2008, 2013) proposes grouping strategies according to post hoc thematic analyses in place of any a priori classification. Oxford (2017) in her latest book has used the term “role or function” of strategies instead of categories because of the flexibility and fluid nature of the strategies.

Previous Studies

The literature review indicates a gradual shift in the research area with some dichotomies and the most important one being the LLS functioning in the cognitivism vs behaviorism theoretical underpinnings. However, as Griffiths (2020) argues the theoretical foundation of LLS is “highly complex, dynamic, and eclectic, drawing inclusively on insights from many different theoretical traditions” (p. 609). Research highlights some approaches that can include the use of LLS for the strategic learner and its role in self/other regulated learning, in a specific task, and its relation to individual

variables like age, gender, motivation, style, and proficiency, including LLS use in “developing language skills and subsystem” (Pawlak, 2019, p. 5). Currently, the discussions to include the concept of self-regulation in the LLS field for a better theoretical foundation and understanding are in place. However, scholars like Thomas and Rose (2019) have questioned the self in self-regulation and point out that there is a need to rethink the “current conceptualizations of strategies to allow definitions to encompass both self-regulated strategy use and other-regulated strategy use” (p. 5).

The earlier research studies have shown that experienced language learners use more learning strategies (Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000). Due to maturational changes, learners of different age groups, with different educational levels and cultural contexts, have different needs and consequently, use different learning strategies (Gavriilidou & Psaltou-Joycey, 2009; Griffiths, 2008; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Peacock & Ho, 2003). Ever since the study of the “good language learner” in the 1970s, high language proficiency is found to correlate positively with the frequency of strategy use. The research studies have shown that proficient language learners often use LLS more frequently and with a greater variety (Anderson, 2005; Bruen, 2001; Chamot & El-dinary, 1999; García & Jiménez, 2014; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006; Martínez et al., 2016; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Purdie & Oliver,



1999; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009; Radwan, 2011; Wharton, 2000). Kamarul (2015) in his study, through multiple regression, found motivation (32.9%) being the first predictor and language achievement (10%) measured through grades as the second predictor contributing to the participants’ employment of the LLS.

In the Indian context, the place of this research study, contributions were found mainly in the field of English as second and foreign language learning. Madhumathi et al. (2014) in their study of 60 ESL students at a private university in India reported that all six-strategy categories of research instrument titled Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) correlated significantly with the total LLS use. A study carried out in India by Feleciya and Meenakshi (2016) among 200 female university students revealed that participants used mostly the metacognitive strategies (M=4.14). The successful candidates who achieved language proficiency are those who were capable of planning, gathering materials, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating their learning process. Harish (2014) carried out his longitudinal case study of social learning strategy use involving Malayalee undergraduate students in India. He used interviews and a social strategies inventory for highlighting students’ strategies in three locations, in a classroom, outside the classroom on campus, and off-campus. He used the structuralist and sociocultural theoretical framework to show that the participants seemed highly motivated, but argued that

a negative sociocultural learning context might be more pervasive. He showed the importance of context in the employment of LLS. In the field of foreign languages in India, the research works have been carried out on various themes such as teaching methodology (Rai, 2017), stereotypes and cultural shocks in learning Spanish (Ahmad, 2018), use of cinema as didactic tool in language classroom (Singh & Mathur, 2010), and the use of literary texts in classroom for teaching (Kumar & Saumya, 2018), among others. However, there is a lack of research to show the employment of LLS in a foreign language context in India. This research on one hand intends to answer the questions raised in this study and on the other hand, as a contribution aims at filling this gap by investigating self-reported strategies used by the participants through a survey. Oxford (2011) highlights three ways of strategy assessment: ‘actual-task strategy assessment’, ‘hybrid assessment’, and ‘general assessment’. The first one examines the strategies employed in the accomplishment of a particular task whereas the second one requires the learner to come up with strategies, which would be used by them to complete the task in a given context. General assessment tries to investigate the LLS employed by the learner without indicating any specific task frequently and provides more general information, which then can be used to associate with other learner variables. In the current study, a mixed method approach has been used to investigate the LLS and its use based on proficiency level and the duration of the



study. Further, the study also aims to shed light on students´ views on LLS and of how to integrate this tool into their learning process.

Research Questions

The present study aims to respond to the following research questions:RQ1. Which LLS is used by the students in the learning of SFL in India? RQ2. Which LLS do they use most and find useful for learning SFL?RQ3. Which strategies did the higher proficient students report using? RQ4. How does the use of LLS vary with the year of study? RQ5. Which LSS did the students find effective in their individual learning process communicated to them?

METHODS

Research Instruments

The present study is of a mixed approach. The qualitative data were collected using an open questionnaire to students that carried four open-ended questions on various aspects of LLS to respond RQ2 and RQ5. The open-ended questions were used

to comprehend the participants’ opinion regarding the strategies and their use in the process of learning the Spanish language in the Indian context. To respond to RQ1, RQ3 and RQ4, a closed questionnaire with a 5 point Likert scale, adopted from Griffiths (2008) was used to collect quantitative data, which according to Cohen et al. (2000) describes a range of possible answers. Data collected were triangulated and analyzed to answer the research questions.

Participants

The participants of the current study were 65 undergraduate university students (Table 1) learning SFL, out of which, 47.7% of the participants are from the third year followed by 18.5% from the second and 33.8% from the first year. These participants were selected from the two renowned central universities in India because of the fact that Spanish is taught as a full-time course in these universities and at the same time, they are important centers of foreign language education.

To measure the proficiency, the grades (CGPA) of students from these two centers of foreign language institution were

University 1 University 2 Total1st year 19 0* 192nd year 10 5 153rd year 17 14 31Total 46 19 65

*No admission

Table 1Participants of the study



considered. Students who have CGPA of 7 or more have been categorised as a higher proficient group in this study. The second group consists of those participants whose CGPA is between 5.5 and 6.9, and the third group comprises of those with CGPA<5.5. The sample involved 27 (41.5%) male and 38 (58.5%) female students. The age of the participants varied from 18 to 27 years with an average age of 20.5 for the whole group.

Ethical Consideration, Validation and Pilot Study

The study followed ethical protocols wherein the participants were informed about this study obtaining their consent and assuring its confidentiality. The content validity of the questionnaire based on relevant existing components of LSS was carried out by expert panel, which assured the clarity of language and practical pertinence. The content validated questionnaire was verified through a pilot test with ten third-

year students to check, validate, and assess the viability of the processes. As the questionnaire was in English, there was no problem in understanding the strategy items and the participants could respond easily on the Likert scale between 1 and 5. Later, the data collected from the whole population involved in the research was analyzed through Pearson’s correlation, which confirmed the construct (convergent) validity of all items of the questionnaire.

Cronbach’s Alpha

To check the reliability and the internal consistency of the questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha test in SPSS was used. This was substantiated to be very high (α = .879). The reliability score of 0.70 is considered to be standard (Vaus, 1995) and in the present case, it was in the range described as “very respectable” by Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995, p. 7) (See Table 2).

Cronbach’s alpha Number of itemsStrategy questionnaire .879 25

Table 2Cronbach’s alpha

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

LLS Used in the Learning of SFL in India For the first research question, participants responded to the Likert scale from 1 to 5 for each item of the questionnaire that consisted of 25 items of common strategies, developed from the bottom-up approach along with

their usage mean and standard deviation, which are presented in Table 3.

The above list of common strategies has been arranged from most to least used strategies in descending order from the self-reported questionnaire. The SD (standard deviation) value of each item in this questionnaire is greater than 1 (SD>1)



Table 3List of strategies with mean and SD

Sl. Learning strategies Mean SD1 Learning from the teacher. 4.26 0.902 Doing homework on time. 4.10 0.883 Using a computer/mobile/tablet. 4.02 1.004 Utilizing a dictionary. 3.79 1.125 Learning from mistakes. 3.71 1.256 Learning in an environment where the language is

spoken. 3.69 1.00

7 Listening to songs in Spanish. 3.63 1.268 Practising Spanish grammar. 3.58 1.149 Listening to native speakers of Spanish. 3.55 1.2010 Talking to other fellow mates in Spanish. 3.53 1.1811 Trying to think in Spanish. 3.53 1.2912 Revising regularly the lessons taught in class. 3.45 1.1313 Consciously learning new vocabulary. 3.44 1.2014 Reading books in Spanish. 3.40 1.1915 Learning about the culture of Spanish speakers. 3.35 1.4816 Watching movies in Spanish. 3.34 1.3817 Watching Television in Spanish. 3.23 1.1218 Listening to music while studying. 3.19 1.4619 Taking note of language used in the environment. 3.18 1.1220 Not worrying about mistakes while using Spanish. 3.08 1.3821 Using a self-study centre. 3.06 1.3522 Utilizing language-learning games. 2.98 1.3723 Talking to native speakers of Spanish. 2.98 1.2324 Dedicating much time studying Spanish. 2.92 1.2825 Making friends with native speakers. 2.81 1.25

except for the first two items. The high SD value suggests that there is great variation in the reported use of these strategies and the participants vary widely in their responses. The first 11 strategies belong to the high usage category according to the Strategy use

results profile key (Oxford, 1990) as their mean is greater than 3.50. The rest of the 14 strategies pertain to the medium usage group with their mean oscillating between 2.50 to 3.49. There were no items from the low usage group. The first 11 strategies that



pertain to the high usage group have been discussed below.

It is not surprising to see the strategy “learning from the teacher”, being reported as most frequently used with the highest mean by almost all the participants. This suggests two interesting points; a) Indian students, in general, give a lot of importance and respect to teachers and consider him/her as the main protagonist in their learning process b) the role of the teacher in guiding and stimulating the students and set the stage for them to become autonomous learners becomes crucial. The first activity is also a reflection of the Indian tradition and culture where the teacher in the classrooms is still considered the sole authority of the class and the students do not get much prominence in the teaching plan (Ranjan, 2018). In Asian classrooms in general, there is a strict discipline and absolute teacher authority considered as prominent characteristics (Sadeghi & Esmaeili, 2021). Sometimes, it is very difficult to break this custom and rigid practice. Therefore, in this type of situation, the teachers should act as facilitators of learning (Vattøy & Gamlem, 2020) and not just transmitters of content. This is very much in line with the idea of scaffolding expressed by Vygotsky (1978) in his theory of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), wherein a guidance from a knowledgeable one (teacher) is required. The good teacher focuses on creating situations that, on the one hand, help them to teach the language content and on the other, focuses on student´s learning. In addition, the teacher has to be a skillful

manipulator and function as an active agent when it comes to awakening autonomy in the language classrooms.

The second strategy on the list is “doing homework on time”. There exist subjectivity in this learning strategy as it may carry many meanings in terms of the type of task, the process of completing the task, among others. These strategies mentioned on the list were very generic and were not subdivided into more specific behaviours. The reason behind this decision was that the researchers did not want to generate disinterest among the participants by developing a questionnaire of very long duration.

The next two strategies are “using a computer/mobile/tablet and a dictionary”. These two approaches suggest that the students require both technological and non-technological resources to learn a foreign language. It should be mentioned here again that subjectivity has not been addressed. It means using a computer could lead to many other questions such as why, when, how often, etc.

The other s t rategy in the table is “learning from mistakes”. Although all students reported using this strategy with an average use of 3.71, successful students reported using it more frequently (M=4.00, as shown in Table 4). This strategy underlines that ability to focus on details and thereby learn from experience. This particular way of learning is typical of those students who care less about precision but maintain a rapport in fluency (Brumfit, 1984; Shallenberger, 2015).



The next strategy in Table 3 is “learning in an environment where the language is spoken” (M=3.69). In reference to the Indian context, this fact is more obvious as the students do not have the possibility of being immersed in a Hispanic culture environment. The only options are the given local conditions, the textbook available and the online resources through which they practice the language. In other words, their experience to learn and use the Spanish language is limited to local surroundings that include colleagues, teachers, and/or natives if found any.

The subsequent strategy is “listening to songs in Spanish”, which is also recommended by teachers. Listening to songs serves two main purposes. First, it helps to develop listening skills and second, it improves speaking ability. Again, it was observed that successful students reported using this strategy very frequently with an average of 3.93 compared to 3.63 as informed by surveyed students.

“Practising Spanish grammar” is the next strategy used by students according to this survey. There is no significant difference in the use of this among the three groups of participants (as shown in Table 5). The language aspect that Indian students find more difficult about learning SFL is grammar. This has to do with teaching methodology because some of the teachers still often follow the traditional Grammar-Translation method. Given the multilingual context, Indian students, in general are aware of two or more languages, which at times lead them to even contrast between

these languages. Furthermore, due to the multi-linguistic context in which they grow up, they unconsciously develop a translation competence (Ranjan, 2018). Therefore, most students, contrary to their wish end up translating during a conversation. In this type of situation, grammar plays an important role. This result also indicates that students pay close attention to internalizing grammar rules. Moreover, the Spanish language courses offered in the Indian universities have Translation subject offered where the norm is to practice Spanish-English or English-Spanish translations (Kumar, 2020). Hence, the Indian students demonstrate a high degree of dependence on grammar and translation for fulfilling their purpose of expressing themselves in Spanish.

“Listening to native speakers” and “speaking with other students (classmates) in Spanish” are two strategies that the participants reported using. The average use is 3.55 for the first strategy and 3.53 for the next. These strategies suggest that students use social strategies very often. They are not shy and take control of their affective filters. They always look for opportunities to practice their Spanish either with the natives or with friends.

The following strategy “trying to think in Spanish” (M=3.53) strengthens and makes possible metacognitive skills that are important at the time of learning a language and sustain a conversation. Thinking about the learning process in itself, its success, error, and failure help a lot in achieving mastery of the language (Ranjan et al. 2019).



Useful LLS for SFL in India

For the second research question, participants were asked to respond to some open-ended questions. One of them was about the type of learning strategies that students use the most (for example memory, cognitive, guess, social, reflecting on oneself, etc.) and find useful in learning Spanish. They were also asked to provide the reason for using them. The students gave different types of strategies for learning Spanish. After coding the responses, the following themes emerged from the responses of the participants.

• writing• v i s u a l m e m o r y / m e m o r y /

memorizing• cognitive• practising grammar exercises.• guessing• social/social interactions• thinking in Spanish

Some of them mentioned that writing helps them to remember grammar rules and vocabulary effectively. Another strategy was visual memory. Some said that the things they learn visually make it easier for them to remember for a long time and added that they prefer to learn from watching. Some mentioned memory strategies because when they find a new word, they relate it to a picture (in case of a noun) or action (in the case of a verb). They underlined that the relating technique helps them to remember better. Guessing is another strategy that some adopt in their learning process. For some, cognitive strategies

appear to be beneficial. Practicing grammar exercises is another strategy reported by some. In the social category, they underlined the importance of social interaction and practicing with classmates, which is also a very common strategy to learn a foreign language. The last strategy that should be mentioned here is to think in Spanish. Thinking in Spanish is both a cognitive and a metacognitive strategy. Thinking in Spanish not only helps in short-term memory but also serves to develop concepts in long-term memory.

The next open-ended question in the questionnaire tried to see the learning strategies that the participants find useful for learning Spanish. The following themes emerged after coding and analysing the responses:

• writing and practicing regularly• conversing in Spanish about the

topics learned with friends and speaking with natives

• using new words in Spanish• watching movies• thinking in Spanish• memory and guessing• learning through texts• translation and practicing grammar

Some also reported reading comics, jokes, cartoons, self-study, debate, music, among others, as useful tools for learning Spanish.

Contrasting the results obtained from the open-ended (qualitative) and close-ended questionnaire (quantitative), there were several strategies that were found common



to both instruments applied. Some of the common strategies reported were practicing grammar, thinking in Spanish, talking to classmates (social) and visual memory among others. However, there was a lack of metacognitive and affective strategies in their responses. The complementarity of the data from these two approaches strengthens and substantiates the findings of the present research.

Strategies Used by Higher Proficient Students

Table 4 shows the list of strategies, which were reported being used with higher frequency by the higher proficient group with an average mean of more than 3.50 in descending order. The strategies have been discussed previously while responding to RQ1.

Sl. Learning activities MH SD1 Learning from the teacher. 4.40 0.742 Doing homework on time. 4.20 0.864 Utilizing a dictionary. 4.00 1.005 Learning from mistakes. 4.00 1.073 Using a computer/mobile/tablet. 3.93 0.967 Listening to songs in Spanish. 3.93 1.1015 Learning about the culture of Spanish speakers. 3.73 1.169 Listening to native speakers of Spanish. 3.60 1.126 Learning in an environment where the language is spoken. 3.53 1.138 Practicing Spanish grammar. 3.53 1.30

Table 4List of strategies that higher proficient reported using with mean and SD

Table 5Comparison of the use of strategies between three groups of participants with mean and SD

Table 5 presents a comparison of the use of strategies between the three groups of

participants. These groups have been divided based on the CGPA of the participants.

Sl. Learning activities MH SD MM SD ML SD1 Learning from the teacher. 4.40 0.74 4.47 0.51 4.07 1.112 Doing homework on time. 4.20 0.86 4.35 0.79 3.90 0.923 Using a computer/mobile/tablet. 3.93 0.96 4.12 1.22 4.00 0.914 Utilizing a dictionary. 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.94 3.57 1.25



Table 5 (Continued)

Sl. Learning activities MH SD MM SD ML SD5 Learning from mistakes. 4.00 1.07 3.88 0.99 3.47 1.436 Learning in an environment where

the language is spoken. 3.53 1.13 3.76 1.15 3.73 0.87

7 Listening to songs in Spanish. 3.93 1.10 3.35 1.41 3.63 1.258 Practicing Spanish grammar. 3.53 1.30 3.59 1.12 3.60 1.109 Listening to native speakers of

Spanish. 3.60 1.12 3.65 1.17 3.47 1.28

10 Talking to other fellow mates in Spanish.

3.40 1.06 3.71 1.40 3.50 1.14

11 Trying to think in Spanish. 3.27 1.10 3.88 1.32 3.47 1.3612 Revising regularly the lessons

taught in class.3.33 1.18 3.29 1.16 3.60 1.10

13 Consciously learning new vocabulary.

3.27 1.16 3.41 1.18 3.53 1.25

14 Reading books in Spanish. 3.20 1.26 3.59 1.18 3.40 1.1915 Learning about the culture of

Spanish speakers. 3.73 1.16 3.76 1.35 2.93 1.62

16 Watching movies in Spanish. 3.07 1.10 3.71 1.36 3.27 1.5117 Watching Television in Spanish. 2.93 1.16 3.35 0.79 3.30 1.2618 Listening to music while studying. 3.27 1.58 3.18 1.74 3.17 1.2619 Taking note of language used in

the environment. 3.13 0.99 3.47 1.18 3.03 1.16

20 Not worrying about mistakes while using Spanish.

3.07 1.39 2.94 1.39 3.17 1.42

21 Using a self-study centre. 2.93 1.53 2.76 1.30 3.30 1.2922 Utilizing language-learning games. 2.60 1.18 2.94 1.48 3.20 1.4023 Talking to native speakers of

Spanish. 2.53 1.13 3.24 1.30 3.07 1.23

24 Dedicating much time studying Spanish.

3.27 1.33 3.12 1.45 2.63 1.13

25 Making friends with native speakers.

2.87 1.19 3.29 1.31 2.50 1.20

Note. SD (Standard deviation), MH (Mean of students with CGPA>7), MM (Mean of students with CGPA between 5.5 & 6.9), ML (Mean of students with CGPA<5.5)



A one-way analysis of variance test was conducted to evaluate if there is any significant difference in the LLS use in the groups based on the proficiency (CGPA) of participants of this study. The independent variable, proficiency as showed by their CGPA, included three groups: High proficient ((M= 3.37, SD=0.47, n=15), Medium proficient ((M=3.58, SD=0.67, n=17), and Low proficient (M=3.39, SD=0.57, n=30).

A Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p>.05) (Razali & Wah, 2011; Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) and a visual inspection of their histograms (Figure 1), showed that the LLS scores were approximately normally distributed for higher, medium and lower group of students, with the following skewness and kurtosis (Table 6).

The assumptions of homogeneity of variances were tested and found tenable using Levene´s Test, F (2, 59) = 1.043, p=.36. The ANOVA was not significant F (2, 59) = .706, p= .498, η2= .02. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant difference in the use of LLS among the three groups (MH, MM, and ML). The present result does not indicate any statistically significant use in LLS among the three groups as in earlier researches like Al-Buainain (2010), Alhaisoni (2012), Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006), and Feleciya and Meenakshi (2016). However, the usage pattern of the high proficient group differs from the other two groups.

Year Higher category Medium category Lower categoryLLS Score Skewness .324 (SE=.580) .100 (SE=.550) -.201 (SE=.427)

Kurtosis .416 (SE=1.121) -.671 (SE=1.063) -.945 (SE=.833)

Table 6Skewness and kurtosis for checking normality of the data

*SE=Standard Error

Figure 1. Histograms for normality of data (proficiency level wise for three groups)



Use of LLS and the Year of Study

A one-way analysis of variance test was conducted to evaluate if there is any significant difference in the use of LLS based on the year of study of participants. The independent variable, year of study, included three groups: First Year (M= 3.00, SD=.39, n=22), Second Year (M=3.57, SD=.42, n=12), and Third Year (M=3.72, SD=.54, n=28).

A Shapiro- Wilk’s test (p> .05) (Razali & Wah, 2011; Shapiro & Wilk, 1965) and

a visual inspection of their histograms (Figure 2), showed that the LLS scores were normally distributed for first, second and third-year students, with the following skewness and kurtosis (Table 7).

The assumptions of homogeneity of variances were tested and found tenable using Levene´s Test, F (2, 59) = .70, p= .50. The ANOVA was significant F (2, 59) = 14.49, p= .000, η2= .33. Thus, there is a significant difference between the three groups in their use of LLS.

Year First Year Second Year Third YearLLS Score Skewness .061 (SE=.491) .391 (SE=.637) -.402 (SE=.441)

Kurtosis -.744 (SE=.953) -.292 (SE=1.232) .063 (SE=.858)

Table 7Skewness and kurtosis for checking normality of the data

*SE=Standard Error

Figure 2. Histograms for normality of data (year of study wise for three groups)

Post hoc comparisons to evaluate pairwise differences among group means were conducted with the use of a Tukey HSD test since equal variance was tenable. Tests revealed significant pairwise differences between the mean scores of students who are

from the first year with the students of the second and third year. The pairwise p-value is mentioned in Table 8.

This result is in line with the previous studies (Khalil, 2008; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007) where a gradual progression in the



LLS use was found with the duration of the study. The overall implication of this part indicated that the repertoire of the learners increases with the duration. It means the more experienced learners (in terms of years of study) use LLS more frequently than the less experienced ones.

Effective LSS to Students’ Learning Process

The last research question was aimed at finding if any LLS has been communicated to the participants, which they found effective in complementing their individual learning process. Most of the participants responded, along with other strategies, watching movies or videos as strategies communicated to them to supplement their learning process. The responses indicated that almost all the strategies mentioned are generic in nature and no concrete answer was found. This may be due to a lack of strategic training. However, an attempt was made to codify the responses and arrive at the main themes, which are presented in the following graph.

As per Table 9, 41 % of the students responded watching Spanish television /movies/soap operas, as the main strategy communicated to them by their teachers. Therefore, Indian teachers consider visual elements as an important factor in learning. Some students provided the following answers included in the category “others”, which are:

• Learning the culture and lifestyle of the natives to capture information

• Doing role play• Instead of using English as the base

language, Hindi should be the base language

• Trying to speak to eliminate doubts• Group learning• Comparing languages• Talking to natives and make new

friends

These responses can be seen as activities and procedures to facilitate learning. For example, Hindi is the language of instruction or base language or comparison between languages. After analysing the responses,

Table 8ANOVA test result in the usage of strategies between three groups of participants

(I) Year of study (J) Year of study Mean difference (I-J) Sig. (p)

First Year Second Year -.56636* .004Third Year -.71636* .000

Second Year First Year .56636* .004Third Year -.15000 .635

Third Year First Year .71636* .000Second Year .15000 .635

*The difference in averages is significant at the 0.05 level.



it may be inferred that the participants of the current study may not have training in the field of the use of strategies. They lack the knowledge of the strategic instruction and potential of this phenomenon and the proper use of strategies in enhancing the learning experiences. Furthermore, almost 11% of the students answered negatively, which means that the teachers have not provided any strategy to facilitate their learning process. Almost 9% of the students reported that their teachers have suggested the use of the internet and its various tools to complement their individual learning process. The result was considered to be proportional to the quantity, multiplicity, and individuality of the replies. The participants perceived the value of learning opportunities that can then be linked to the effectiveness of introducing the LLS in a conscious, planned, and class-based way.

The present research study aims to look at the use of LLS from learners’ point of view in its totality. The results show that the more

LLS communicated %Movies/Videos 40.91Others 15.91No 11.36Internet 9.09Listening 6.82Reading 4.55Cognitive 4.55Translation 4.55Grammar 2.27

Table 9LLS communicated to the participants

proficient group does not use the strategies more often, but may differ in the quality of strategies they employ. It also suggests that they may use a strategy in completing different tasks, which sheds light on the fact that certain types of strategies appear to be typical of more proficient students (Griffiths, 2018). In contrast to this result with the previous studies, it was found that more proficient groups engaged in LLS more frequently and at the same time employed a broader range of strategies (Khaldieh, 2000; Rao, 2016; Wu, 2008). This might also suggest that conscious adoption of learning strategies could actually decrease as the competition increases. In terms of duration of the study, the previous research (Alhaysony, 2017; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000) has shown that the more experienced learners use the strategies more often and differs in their approach while applying them during task completion. The results in terms of duration of study are in line with the previous studies.

CONCLUSION

The present research work reflects the use of common strategies in learning Spanish in the Indian context and examines their relationship with language achievement and the year of study. RQ1 and RQ2 were responded to after triangulating the qualitative and quantitative data. Indian students pay more attention to cognitive, memory, and social strategies. However, there was a lack of metacognitive and affective strategies in their responses.



This may be because of a lack of strategic training, which can be considered as one of the implications of the present study. ANOVA test results for RQ3 showed no significant difference in the use of LLS among the three groups. RQ4 ANOVA results highlighted a statistically significant difference in the LLS use among the groups. The third-year participants used LLS more frequently than the second and first-year students. The responses for RQ5 highlight that there is a need for strategic training and explore the effectiveness and efficiency of LLS in the learning process. Learning of a language takes place at an individual and social level and LLS with its fluid character has the potential to be used as an important tool leading to successful and effective learning.

IMPLICATION AND LIMITATION

The findings of the current research have a positive contribution to educational practices in a language classroom and curriculum design. The study indicated the use of strategy instruction as a positive influence, which enhances the cognizance of LSS in students. The incorporation of explicit and implicit strategy instructions into the regular classes by the language instructors is useful for an effective and efficient language learning experience. Students are to be introduced to the existence of a wide range of learning strategies as per the task demand and suitability of context. Being a mixed method study, perhaps a semi-structured interview of students based on a specific task to obtain deeper insights

to explain their choice and use of these particular strategies could have strengthened the present research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our cordial thanks to all the participants that voluntarily took part in this study. The authors confirm that this article is not part of any funding.

REFERENCESAhmad, A. (2018). Misunderstandings, stereotypes

and cultural shocks of Indian learners of Spanish as a foreign language. Hispanic Horizon, 34, 119-129.

Al-Buainain, H. (2010). Language learning strategies employed by English majors at Qatar University: Questions and queries. ASIATIC, Journal of English Language and Literature, 4(2), 92-120.

Alhaisoni, E. (2012). Language learning strategy use of Saudi EFL students in an intensive English learning context. Asian Social Science, 8(13), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n13p115

Alhaysony, M. (2017). Language learning strategies use by Saudi EFL students: The effect of duration of English Language study and gender. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0701.03

Anderson, J. R. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language research and learning (pp. 757-772). Routledge.

Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective learner of German. Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02403.x

Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.



Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.

Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00025

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in Education. Routledge Falmer.

de Lucas, E. G. (2006). El español en el subcontinente asiático (Sri Lanka, Pakistán, Bangladés, Nepal y la India) [Spanish in the Asian subcontinent (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and India)]. In Enciclopedia del español en el mundo. Anuario del Instituto Cervantes 2006-2007 (pp. 128-132). Instituto Cervantes.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18

Feleciya, A., & Meenakshi, K. (2016). English language learning strategies used by female ESL learners of Vellore district–an empirical study. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(39). https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i39/98843

Gadre, V.G. (2005). La enseñanza de español: el aula india [Teaching Spanish: Indian Classroom]. In V. G. Gadre (Ed.), Encuentro Indo-Hispanico en el siglo XXI (pp. 103-106). Embassy of Spain in New Delhi and Centre of Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and Latin American Studies, JNU.

García, H. M., & Jiménez, V. A. (2014). Estrategias en el aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera y niveles de competencia en estudiantes universitarios de magisterio [Strategies in foreign language

learning and proficiency levels in university masters students]. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 32 (2) , 363-378. ht tp: / /doi .org/10.6018/rie.32.2.167421

Gavriilidou, Z., & Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2009). Language learning strategies: An overview. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 11-25.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00048-4

Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths, Lessons from good language learners (pp. 83-98). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667.009

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Multilingual Matters.

Griffiths, C. (2018). The strategy factor in successful language learning: The tornado effect (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters

Griffiths, C. (2020). Language learning strategies: Is the baby still in the bathwater? Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 607-611. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy024

Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2018). The effect of language learning strategies on proficiency, attitudes and school achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2358. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02358

Harish, S. (2014). Social strategy use and language learning contexts: A case study of Malayalee undergraduate students in India. System, 43, 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.002

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System,



34(3), 399-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002

Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1976.tb02637.x

Instituto Cervantes. (2020). Annuario del Instituto Cervantes. El español en el mundo 2020 [Instituto Cervantes Yearbook. Spanish in the world 2020]. Instituto Cervantes.

Kamarul, S. (2015). Factors affecting the employment of Arabic language learning strategies among religious secondary school students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23(1), 155-168.

Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 522-534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb01996.x

Khalil, A. (2008). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02458.x

Kumar, G. (2020). Análisis de errores gramaticales en la producción escrita de los aprendices indios de español como lengua extranjera [Analysis of grammatical errors in the written production of Indian learners of Spanish as a foreign language] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Kumar, G., & Saumya, N. (2018). Adoptacion de obras literarias de español para el aula indio de ELE [Adoption of Spanish literary works for the Indian ELE classroom]. Hispanic Horizon, 34, 6-13.

Lan, R., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students

in Taiwan. IRAL, 41(4), 339-379. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.016

Madhumathi, P., Ramani, N., & Prema, M. (2014). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of below average Indian ESL students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 22(2), 455-472.

Magogwe, J., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35(3), 338-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.01.003

Martínez, J., Pérez, M., & Navarrete, J. (2016). Language learning strategy use by Spanish EFL students: The effect of proficiency level, gender, and motivation. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 34(1), 133-149. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.34.1.232981

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Language learning strategies. Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Routledge.

Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. System, 23(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)00047-A

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affect ing choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb06367.x



Pawlak, M. (2019). Investigating language learning strategies: Prospects, pitfalls and challenges. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819876156

Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student Language Learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00043

Psaltou-Joycey, A., & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Plurilingualism, language learning strategy use and learning style preferences. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(4), 460-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710903254620

Purdie, N., & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school aged children. System, 27, 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00032-9

Radwan, A. A. (2011). Effects of L2 proficiency and gender on choice of language learning strategies by university students majoring in English. The Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 114-162.

Rai, D. K. (2017). The challenges of Spanish language teaching in multilingual India: A case study of Delhi. Pedagogical Research, 2(2), 05. https://doi.org/10.20897/pr/80950

Ranjan, R. (2018). Language learning strategies: Its role in learning of Spanish in Indian universities. PROCEEDINGS Vth International Conference on Language, Society and Culture in Asian Contexts (LSCAC 2018) (pp. 1510-1521). Media Nusa Creative.

Ranjan, R., Philominraj, A., & Kumar, G. (2019). Relationship between metacognitive learning strategies and proficiency in EFL classroom in Chile. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6), 938-945. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.76140

Rao, Z. (2016). Language learning strategies and English proficiency: Interpretations from

information-processing theory. Language Learning Journal, 44, 90-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.733886

Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2, 21-33.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.2.117

Sadeghi, K., & Esmaeili, F. (2021). English teachers’ perception of school climate and effective teaching. Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 1(1), 1-21.

Shallenberger, D. (2015). Learning from our mistakes: International educators reflect. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26(1), 248-263. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v26i1.369

Shapiro, S., & Wilk, M. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591

Singh, V. K. (2009). Los currículos de ELE en las universidades indias: falta de capacitación y formación docente en el área de ELE [ELE curricula in Indian universities: lack of teacher-training and education in the area of ELE; Paper presentation]. I Congreso de español como lengua extranjera en Asia-Pacífico (CE/LEAP), Manila, Philippines.

Singh, V. K., & Mathur, I. (2010). El cine como instrumento didáctico en las aulas de ELE en un país de Bollywood [Cinema as a teaching tool in ELE classrooms in a Bollywood country]. Marco



ELE. Revista de Didáctica Español Lengua Extranjera, 11, 1-18

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 304-318. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.31.4.304

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching: Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives on applied linguistic research. Oxford University Press.

Thomas, N., & Rose, H. (2019). Do language learning strategies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473

Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046

Vattøy, K. D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2020). Teacher–student interactions and feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms, Cambridge Journal of Education, 50(3), 371-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2019.1707512

Vaus, D. (1995). Surveys in social research. Allen & Unwin.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Prentice Hall.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00117

Wu, Y. L. (2008). Language learning strategies used by students at different proficiency levels. Asian EFL Journal, 4(10), 75-95.

Zhang, L. J., Thomas, N., & Qin, T. L. (2019). Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back and looking forward. System, 84, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.002

Documents

Use of Language Learning Strategies by Indian Learners of